AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Boundary problem part two

25 Posts
9 Users
0 Reactions
1,309 Views
Joe the Surveyor
(@joe-the-surveyor)
Posts: 1932
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Any idea how the error came to be?


 
Posted : December 3, 2011 3:11 pm
Stephen Calder
(@stephen-calder)
Posts: 456
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

>
> No, if a monument is a substantially correct realization of the position described in a deed, then it's often good enough as a purely practical matter, although not necessarily as one of law. According to Bruce's desciption, most of the monuments he found along the right-of-way might qualify as substantially correct realizations of the lines and corners described in the deeds by which the State acquired the right-of-way. However, those two monuments that he shows in this thread clearly are not. All monuments are not created equal.

I partially agree with these statements but not entirely, however, in this instance, yes the former location of the monuments should be discarded. And now finding out that a third party, the county, set them later, then almost certainly, they should be discarded.

Stephen


 
Posted : December 3, 2011 6:27 pm
Jack Chiles
(@jack-chiles)
Posts: 356
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Hey Bruce, I'm sure this is a wild stab but,

is there any chance that the scale factor you cited is anywhere near the Combined Scale Factor for grid to surface conversions in that area? It is pretty close (very) to Houston's general C. S. F. I think the TxDOT scale factor for Harris County is 0.9998867.


 
Posted : December 3, 2011 8:58 pm
Bruce Small
(@bruce-small)
Posts: 1573
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Hey Bruce, I'm sure this is a wild stab but,

The shortage isn't quite a combined scale factor, but it certainly is a consistent something. Chain factor, grid to ground, something.


 
Posted : December 4, 2011 8:07 am
vern
 vern
(@vern)
Posts: 1514
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

After thinking about it for a couple days and then reading all the responses, my opinion is that the deed holds as that is what was conveyed. The R-O-W map, if I understand correctly, was a failed attempt at monumenting the deed and now that the monuments are gone irrelevant.


 
Posted : December 4, 2011 6:20 pm

Page 2 / 2